Chairperson: Tom Perrett (TP)

Speakers: Richard Hall (RH); Brian Lomax (BL)

TP welcomed everyone to the meeting and announced its two aims:

• to explain and discuss what the formation of a Walsall Supporters' Trust would mean for the fans and the club; and
• to decide whether there is enough support to launch a Trust.

TP then introduced the two speakers. The first speaker was BL who is involved with the central Supporters Direct committee and also the Northampton Town Supporters' Trust and who had been their representative on the NTFC Board. The second speaker was RH a Walsall supporter of twenty years standing who was pushing the case for a Supporters' Trust for WFC.

BL then gave an explanation of what had happened at NTFC after a winding up order had been passed in 1992. The Trust which had been set-up there was in negotiation with the Council and, as a condition of the lease on Sixfields, managed to get a guarantee that a democratically elected Trust member would be on the Board of NTFC.

BL noted that whilst directors of football clubs turn to supporters when they need money, they rarely offer any form of partnership in the running or direction of the club. At NTFC the Trust managed to get a return on supporters' years of investment and now all profits from the Trust are invested in the club in return for shares. The NTFC Trust has a low cost, high membership approach.

BL also noted how the club now had an equal opportunities policy, had improved disabled facilities and had moved an anti-racist policy forward. Football-in-the-community was an important driver for the Trust and the club benefited through improved attendances. The local authority saw the club being bound to the community more than a private limited company, and the democratic mandate of the Trust was key.

In terms of what the central unit could offer BL stated that the Government and the Football Trust backed the Supporters Direct (SD) initiative and were looking to recommend the NTFC model to other groups. They fully supported the notion of other fans setting up their own trusts and looking for positions of responsibility. SD was due to be launched this month and would provide:

• advice on setting up a trust;
• model constitutions, rules, and examples;
• free legal advice;
• training for those looking to take responsibility within a trust;
• small grants for the costs of elections which would gain publicity through the Electoral Reform Society;
• a starter pack; and
• preferential banking from the Co-op bank.

BL stated that the best solution to supporter representation at particular clubs would depend upon the local situation. However, it was vital that any trust should be: affordable to all supporters; not-for-profit; and, democratic in order to guarantee that the trust was run for public rather than private benefit.

RH then discussed the situation at WFC and related this to the prospect of a trust. WFC is a company limited by shares. There are 50,000 ordinary shares of which Mr Bonser was the majority shareholder, although there are very many small shareholders. In order to be up for election to the Board at an AGM a shareholder would need 50 shares. According to Mr Whalley although the club has six directors, its day-to-day management was driven by an Executive Board.

RH stated that the key issue for him was how to turn the club into a welcoming institution which was embedded in the community. There was a need for a shared vision between the Board and the fans that could move the club forward. He noted that the club's memoranda of association stated that WFC Ltd should 'promote, finance or assist any other company for the purpose of acquiring all or part of the property rights and liabilities of the Company [WFC Ltd] or for any other purpose which may seem directly or indirectly to benefit the Company.' There was no reason why a democratic WFC trust could not be viewed in this light as long as it sought to be constructive.

It was stated that there was a lack of communication and dialogue between supporters and Board; that the fans did not understand the day-to-day running of the club because they were excluded from the internal workings of the club. RH noted that a trust would offer the club:

• increased commitment from the fans;
• a direct link to the community of Walsall;
• funds for community projects; and
• support for, and understanding of, long-term projects.

A trust would offer the fans:

• a chance to prepare a case for involvement in the club after Mr Bonser had departed - fans' involvement would make the club look more attractive as a going-concern to potential investors;
• democratic ownership which would lead to support from the Council;
• a supportive shareholding;
• a forum for their issues to be debated and dealt with; and,
• explanations rather than impositions.

The key was how the position of a democratically-elected supporters' representative could be entrenched on the Board. RH supported a low cost, high membership trust which would approach shareholders to see whether they would relinquish some or all of their shares for the use of the trust. Monies would be raised by sponsorship, donations and subscriptions. They could sell these shares or give their [voting] use to the trust (a shareholders' trust).

A concern was raised about how democratic any trust's shareholding would be. BL, RH and TP all stated that the trust's constitution would have democratic checks in place so that it could not be hijacked by any one person or group. If the trust was a broad organisation this would be relatively impossible and executive officers or representatives would have to answer to the trust's members via regular meetings, AGMs and elections. These officers would have to be responsive to the needs of the supporters. None of SD, the Government, the local council or the Co-op bank would support an undemocratic trust.

BL stated that more intractable shareholders and chairmen that Mr Bonser had shifted position towards their fans. He offered SD's support in any negotiations TP noted the support the council would give to negotiations and said that there was a political, practical argument for 'businesses' to work with 'customers', namely the need for customer care. He also argued that a trust's success would earn it local respect and give it weight in any discussions.

BL noted that any answers would have to be found at the local level. Nothing could be imposed. TP stated that the trust was a very simple and very attractive way forward for fans and that made it appealing and very difficult to turn against. It was too sensible an idea to ignore or attack without looking foolish.

It was noted that positive public opinion was very important. The trust should not be seen as a witch hunt, but should create a momentum that would provide a solution for the club's future.

TP noted that councillors could be members of the trust and RH stated that it would be desirable for the council to be represented on the trust's committee.

Democracy and supporter-involvement in the planning of the club was reiterated as being very important.

BL noted how the trust at Celtic showed that there was no need for a crisis to encourage supporters towards involvement. RH stated that once a trust had a critical mass of supporters and shares then it could approach the club with others of influence. However, it must be seen in a positive light, as promoting constructive partnership with the Board.

Carried nem con.

The working party of 11 has been convened and will look to launch the trust within a month.